What do you think about Jehovah's Witnesses' policy on blood transfusions? Another question after .. nospace

Question

I would like to know you thoughts on Jenovah's Witnesses' policy on blood transfusion. I would also like to know your thoughts on whether the government should be able to overrule a religion's policy of someone's life was in danger. Be as descriptive as you want. The more descriptive the better.

Answer 1

The Watchtower cares more about lawsuits than life.

It is the Watchtower that has heaped controversy on itself with it's arbitrary flip-flopping decisions on what "parts" aka fractions of Blood are allowed and disallowed.

If you go by the old testament it says to pour ALL the blood onto the ground as dust as it is ALL sacred to God.So,where does the Watchtower get the authority to decide what "parts" of something that is sacred can be used??

Moreover,no question it's more healthy not to put another persons blood or any body parts into your body if you don't need it.In cases of emergency trauma such as in a car crash if I lose 3-4 pints of blood I will die without an emergency transfusion there is no time for fancy modern gadgets or vitamin supplements to 'build up my blood'.


Case in point,I had a 'totalproctocolectomy' major surgery and did all the things you JW's suggest to build up and prep my body for surgery and had two pints of my own blood (forbidden by the WT) on standby that my skilled surgeon did not have to use.BUT I had 3 months to prepare for that surgery.
Some cases need immediate life-saving emergency blood transfusions and the watchtower's doctrine Say's NO.
Too, common sense says in cases where someone is gushing blood there isn’t time to slowly try to bring up blood volume with expanders etc.
Moreover,the Watchtower condemns using (your OWN stored) autologous blood!

The Watchtower WILL excommunicate you if they find out a baptized JW has had a transfusion.To deny this and say it's a "personal conscience matter" is a lie.

It is predicted that in possibly 10-20 years an "artificial souless blood" will be available for everybody putting an end to Red Cross collections and the blood transfusion controversy.
(Some educational links provided below:)

http://www.ajwrb.org/ Jehovah Witness blood policy reform site

http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htm Will you die for a lie?

(Jehovah's Witnesses do use many products that are derived from blood banks (so called blood 'fractions') but they themselves won't donate a drop)

Answer 2

When the topic of outlawing the free exercise of being obedient to the Supreme Sovreign of the universe comes up, I always am amused. Not by that, but by the reasoning behind it.

Jehovah is the Most High, the Almighty. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18) He certainly has the right to tell us how to use what he has created, as well as to not use it, if he so desires. Just ask Adam & Eve, who thought they could eat of the fruit from which he told them not to.

Well, he has told us the same thing about blood in Acts 15:28, 29.

There is nothing that can happen to us that he cannot undo. If we die due to being faithful, he can and will resurrect us at the right time.

He also outranks any and all humans, individually and collectively.

These same humans who want to see us required to disobey God because we MIGHT die otherwise have no problem with risking their own lives or that of their children to support or promote a mere human government, which cannot do anything at all for them once they die.

Go to the first link below and check out some of the information on bloodless medicine and transfusion alternatives. We and our loved ones are not in the danger many would like to have others believe. But even if we are, obedience to God comes above our own lives. - Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24.

Answer 3

The Watchtower lifted the ban on albumin and other blood components in 1982: "While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration. However, Witnesses religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these." Awake 06/22/82 p25 The Watchtower June 15, 2000, in a “Questions from Readers” article, once again revised their position, allowing secondary components of blood to be used, and leaving the decision concerning the use of fractions of any “primary” components to the individual: "...when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself." Apparently, it takes awhile for the word to get out to everyone. ---------------- The use of albumin was previously banned: “While this physician argues for the use of certain blood fractions, particularly albumin, such also come under the Scriptural ban...it would be well to note the labels on [food] products to see if they contain any blood substances or fractions. When in doubt, it would be best to do without.”Awake! 09/08/56 p20 "The blood in any person is in reality the person himself. ... poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits ... The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood. Moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes - these often follow in the wake of blood transfusion." Watchtower 09/15/61 p564 In 1958, accepting a blood transfusion was not considered a reason for shunning or disfellowshipping. Watchtower 08/01/58 p478 In 1961 blood transfusions became a disfellowshipping offense. "Beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses."(Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom pp183-184). The Watchtower February 15, 1963 p. 124 made it clear that using either whole blood or any of its components is wrong. Originally, neither eating blood nor accepting blood transfusions were condemned by the organization. In 1909, founder Charles T. Russell explained that since the four prohibitions in Acts were part of the Mosaic Law Covenant they didn't apply to Gentiles. Blood was allowed to be eaten by Russell and the Bible Students. Zion's Watch Tower 04/15/1909 pp116-117 Seems like when it comes time for the resurrection, there's going to be a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses out there with varying beliefs on this doctrine and others that have been changed over the years, since the dead don't know anything. And they're the ones who are supposed to teach the rest of us? If so, we're in for chaos and confusion.

Answer 4

The witness blood teaching has morphed over time. It fails in its claim of being scriptural because it ignores biblical examples where it was actually not a big deal in the long run...

1 Samuel 14:32 says Saul's whole army ate meat with blood to stay alive and were not punished as it was an emergency. They ignore this. Why?

And how serious is it? Leviticus 17:15 says: "As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean." (NWT) How about THAT!? Wash up and you're "clean" by the end of the day! The last time they included this in any discussion about blood was 1954, and they tried to downplay its importance.

They make changes to what can and can't be done in the medical use of blood. What's their motivation in changing from a simple blanket statement of "no blood transfusions of any kind" to: ...okay under these circumstances you can do this with this blood component, and under these other circumstances you can do that with this other component... ???

For decades, they have taken to rambling about one point or another and then had to correct themselves when they realized they hadn't kept track of what they'd said about a subject the last time they wrote about it.

For appearance's sake, they try to appear that they've kept up with technology. So when a new twist arrives to a blood treatment process, rather than keeping things simple, they feel compelled to analyze it and make another decision. So... can you store your own blood? Can you have your blood "cleaned" if it leaves your body and is routed back? Can you accept a treatment that includes this "component?"

This issue is one of many that it's important for the JW "Governing Body" to maintain the appearance of authority over. Just as they are paying out for lawsuits over molestation, they really don't want to have to admit they were wrong about blood.

Yes, medical advances in blood substitution have been made in the past decades. Yes, some of those have been in response to the JW refusal to accept blood. That's great, but it's actually beside the point.....

Do the leaders of the JWs have the authority to tell their people not to take blood (in whatever formula they have contrived)? They have taken that authority upon themselves. Whether they claim that it's an individual "conscience" decision or not, the individual witness really is under compulsion. And their leaders don't actually care about whether they were technically right or not. They care about obedience. Witnesses have, indeed, died in the past for refusing treatments that the witnesses now allow.

Should the government be able to overrule the individual? I know that they can step in when a child is involved. Although I took the no-blood stand for my children several times when I was a witness, I was told that if the doctor felt it was critical, he could get a court order so fast my head would spin. But they did humor me.

There's a fine line here about legal intervention. Having been fooled myself, I'd have fought to prevent blood being administered to myself. Having the doctors and hospitals prepared with the religious reasons why my beliefs were wrong might have helped, but as can be seen from the true believers here, it would not likely have been an easy change of mind.

The Watchtower Society has a history of dabbling in "health" advice over the decades.

Answer 5

The policy is a troubling one and one that is not based on the Bible. If a parent expresses the wish for minors, then the government should have the right to overrule their wishes. If a person is an adult and competent to make their own decisions, that is a different story from a legal standpoint.

Answer 6

The Watchtower uses misleading quoting to convince its members that blood transfusions are more dangerous than beneficial. It has used poor scholarship to indicate the bible forbids blood. The current Watchtower understanding on blood is confused and hypocritical. Consider:

Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to use blood fractions to save their own lives, but are forbidden from donating blood.

The Watcthower allowed the used of blood products until the 1940's. It then forbid using blood in any form whatsoever. Now it says that all of blood can be used, provided it is fractionated enough. Obviously the leaders have no idea quite what Gods stand is on this.

The sad thing is that the message of Jesus and the Apostles is missed. Even if blood should not be eatten, there is no reason not to use it to save life. Jews that strictly refrain from blood take blood tranfusions to save life under the principle of pikuach nefesh; that the obligation to save life supersedes Jewish law. Jesus himself drew on this principle when healing on the Sabbath.

For a very comprehensive look on this see http://jwfacts.com/index_files/blooddoctrine.htm

Answer 7

Ironically, it is driving some unusual medical advances, including the creation of "artificial blood", or even real blood created in the laboratory and not in a human body. This policy has probably prevented most of them from catching any diseases that are spread in this fashion, but it has also cost people their lives. As to the reason for doing it, anyone who takes a book written in the Bronze Age that literally should probably reevaluate their reasons for doing so.

As to the government intervening to save someone's life, i believe they do have a DUTY to do so. Sometimes a child's life is involved - what if the child grows up and can't stand the religion and abandons it? Children can't fend for themselves, and religious superstions sometimes wind up costing them their lives. Its time the whole world started believing in reason instead of a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn.

Answer 8

Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, but not to enforce them on others. Therefore, if an adult JW is in need of a transfusion and wishes to refuse the procedure, they have that right. However, if a child is in need of the procedure and the parents will not allow it, the government should and must force them to do it. It is not right to make a child die because of your dogmatic beliefs.

Freedom of religion should be voluntary, otherwise it isn't free. Like freedom of speech, freedom of religion does have its unfortunate but necessary limits. Harm to others is a good reason for such a limit.

Answer 9

They were right after all. A fairly elected government has their democratic right to do as they wish otherwise you look for another country but then you might be out of the frying pan into the fire. And of course people have the right to protest, in a democracy that is.

Answer 10

I think it's great any time someone doesn't require blood, even if they need it and don't want it. There's rarely enough to go around. No, the government should have no authority over religious matters of life and death even if a child is involved.